Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM (Thread 3)

Does anyone else think this lens renders everything a little flat (contrast and color)? I love the lens in many aspects and I still believe it's one of the best lenses in terms price versus quality. But I'm starting notice that there are better lenses (though not perhaps within the same focal length/aperture category) that produce nicer images, optically.

Combining inexperience, lack of talent and the inability to discern that there is a flatness/contrast issue with this lens, I'm generally not concerned with tonal quality or colors because I'm going to typically tweak curves in post anyway.

DSLRs render a bit flat by default, actually. Think of it as an undeveloped photo... all the data is there for you do "expose" as you see fit in post.

philodelphi wrote in post #18236810
DSLRs render a bit flat by default, actually. Think of it as an undeveloped photo... all the data is there for you do "expose" as you see fit in post.

I'm not talking about the whether and how the sensor and RAW format capture and produce data. I've had the 135L and Sigma 35ART with me on the same shoot, under same lighting conditions. And sometimes even with two different cameras (5D3 and Sony A7rii). The output I get form Sigma is much more satisfying (with the exact same settings applied in post).

As this is a photo sample thread perhaps you could articulate your point with a few images.

Yosemite national Park.

OoDee wrote in post #18236893
I'm not talking about the whether and how the sensor and RAW format capture and produce data. I've had the 135L and Sigma 35ART with me on the same shoot, under same lighting conditions. And sometimes even with two different cameras (5D3 and Sony A7rii). The output I get form Sigma is much more satisfying (with the exact same settings applied in post).

I am currently using 3 different (6D/1DIV/80D) Canon bodies. I've used a bunch of different Canon bodies over the last 10 years, or so. I think it would be MORE SURPRISING to get the SAME image out different Canon bodies. I can shoot something with two Canon bodies using the same camera/lens settings with the same Canon lens and get different images. When mixing manufacturers, for both bodies and lenses, it seems odd to expect the images NOT to vary.

Bassat wrote in post #18237394
I am currently using 3 different (6D/1DIV/80D) Canon bodies. I've used a bunch of different Canon bodies over the last 10 years, or so. I think it would be MORE SURPRISING to get the SAME image out different Canon bodies. I can shoot something with two Canon bodies using the same camera/lens settings with the same Canon lens and get different images. When mixing manufacturers, for both bodies and lenses, it seems odd to expect the images NOT to vary.

I was saying that I've tested multiple combinations. But the point was that the lens seems to render more flat and especially my Sigma 35A when used with the same body and same settings. So I was just curious if anyone else has experienced the same.

OoDee wrote in post #18237398
I was saying that I've tested multiple combinations. But the point was that the lens seems to render more flat and especially my Sigma 35A when used with the same body and same settings. So I was just curious if anyone else has experienced the same.

Ok, let me make sure I've got this right. Using the same body, with the same settings, yields different product when you use different lenses, right? I am totally missing the boat on what is surprising you. Perhaps posting comparative images may help.

Say I set up my camera at ISO X, aperture Y, shutter Z, using an aperture available on all the following lenses. I shoot the same scene with my 24-105, 100 macro, and 70-200, and 100-400, all at 100mm. Are you suggesting I should get the same image from all four lenses? I would expect four different images. Obviously the framing would be different, focal length is a SWAG, on most lenses. Beyond that, all lenses have (obviously) different, and variable amounts of, glass. Most lenses have different coatings. Variability in, variability out.

Every time I see that phrase "So I was just curious if anyone else has experienced the same", I figure somebody is out to start an argument. It's that "just curious" (intended to suggest "I have no particular agenda, here") that gives the game away. Every time I see it, the "Agenda!!!, Agenda!!!, Agenda!!!" sirens start wailing in my head. It means the opposite of what it says.

Sincere apologies to the poster if I have misread his intentions. My troll antennae are maybe too sensitive.

Bassat wrote in post #18237406
Ok, let me make sure I've got this right. Using the same body, with the same settings, yields different product when you use different lenses, right? I am totally missing the boat on what is surprising you. Perhaps posting comparative images may help.

Say I set up my camera at ISO X, aperture Y, shutter Z, using an aperture available on all the following lenses. I shoot the same scene with my 24-105, 100 macro, and 70-200, and 100-400, all at 100mm. Are you suggesting I should get the same image from all four lenses? I would expect four different images. Obviously the framing would be different, focal length is a SWAG, on most lenses. Beyond that, all lenses have (obviously) different, and variable amounts of, glass. Most lenses have different coatings. Variability in, variability out.

Ok. Here's what I was trying to ask in the first place: Does anyone else here think that the 135L renders colors and contrast a little flat, compared to some other lenses (e.g. the Sigma 35A)? I'm neither saying nor expecting that every different lens should somehow render exactly similar results (obviously not). But I was just wondering whether anyone else has the same perception about the 135L, given that its optical quality is generally thought of as top notch. I could argue that the 135L, while optically awesome, is not quite as good as some of the newer lenses. But the difference is negligible to the point that it might as well be in my head. That is why I'm curious to hear if anyone else has made similar or differing observations.

I did a little testing. Here's comparison between the 135L and Sigma 35Art (cropped to match 135 frame). Both were shot on manual focus, f/5.6, 1/10sec (on a tripod), ISO 80, flash fired. Turns out that at least in these circumstances the difference is not as big as I had it built up in my head. But to it does seem that Sigma is slightly brighter and perhaps just bit more contrasty.

Sigma on the left, 135L on the right. Shot with Sony A7rii (uncompressed RAW).

The left image is clearly superior ...but isn't this largely due to focusing differences? The 135 has a much shallower depth of field and most of the image is OOF. I don't see how we can meaningfully compare a 35mm lens with a 135mm lens using this kind of test.

I'm on my phone and can't see the difference but a slight difference wouldn't surprise me at all.
The 135 f2 is a 20+ year old design.